Iron and Steel Division - Twenty-Five More Years of Metallography (Howe Memorial Lecture)

IN accordance with the custom of this society, we are gathered here, as we have every year since 1924, to honor the memory of the eminent American metallurgist and teacher, Professor Henry Marion Howe. Unlike many of the distinguished metallurgists who have preceded me as a Howe lecturer, I cannot bring to you reminiscences of his personality, for it was not my privilege to be associated with Professor Howe, or to be directly one of his students. Yet, Professor Howe and Professor Albert Sauveur, through the medium of their books, were my first teachers of metallography, as they have been of almost all American metallurgists of my generation. As a teacher, and for many years the acknowledged leader of American metallurgists, he exercised a profound influence in the growth of our science and was held in honor by the men of science of his time. I can speak no words of technical appreciation that will add luster to his fame, for by his prophetic vision, his teachings, and his researches he stands among the immortals in the memory of all metallurgists. In 1926, the third Howe Memorial Lecture was presented by Professor William Campbell' of Columbia University, who entitled it "Twenty-Five Years of Metallography." He took as a starting date for his chronology the turn of the century, which coincided with his arrival from England to work in association with Howe at the Columbia School of Mines. In that informative lecture Professor Campbell enumerated the important advances in metallography achieved during the first quarter of the century, and, it now appears, may have established the custom of reviewing such progress every twenty-five years. The scope of Professor Campbell's lecture was as broad as his metallurgical knowledge, for it embraced a wide portion of the field of metallography, both ferrous and nonferrous. Twenty-five years later, the Howe Memorial Lecture Committee saw fit to assign to me the honor of writing a lecture that would commemorate the work of Henry Marion Howe and would at the same time constitute the 25th anniversary of the lecture by Professor Campbell. The Committee suggested that this lecture might properly be called "Twenty-Five More Years of Metallography," a suggestion that I have adopted. I must confess, however, that I have not followed the precedent established by Campbell and have narrowed the scope of this lecture to an appraisal of those achievements which in my opinion have contributed most to the progress of microscopical metallography during the past twenty-five years. Progress in Metallography The metallographic methods most widely used today, with the exception of the electron microscope, were firmly established more than twenty-five years ago. In general, our specimens were prepared for microscopic examination in those days in much the same manner as they are today. It is true that new details of technique have been introduced from time to time, and that superior equipment is available today, but on the whole, these improvements have been in the nature of refinements, often a matter of personal preference, and none can be considered essential to the attainment of the ultimate goal of the art and science of metallography, which is to reveal the structure of metallic specimens with unequivocal clarity so that they may be interpreted correctly. Mechanical metallographic polishing, which was the only method available in 1926, is still universally practiced and still consists of abrading the metallic specimen with a series of abrasives of increasing fineness until a specular surface is attained. We have now the alternative method of electropolishing, but it is not widely used because, except in a few special cases, its results are inferior to those of competent mechanical polishing. Likewise, most of the etching reagents preferred today were in common use more than twenty-five years ago and were applied in the same manner as they are today. Valuable improvements have been made in the optical and mechanical performance of metallurgical microscopes, but there was no dearth in those days of excellent instruments equipped with achromatic and apochromatic objectives capable of yielding micrographs comparable in quality with the best that we can make today. In fact, it would be a difficult task for any metallographer today to make optical micrographs at magnifications in excess of 3000 diameters that would surpass those made by Lucas more than twenty-five years ago. One of these is shown in Fig. 1. Yet, it is unquestionable that on the whole, the micrographs appearing in the metallurgical literature today are vastly superior to those